Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Fisherman]

How apt.


Steve

And now he´s accusing me of being apt!

[Elamarna]

Ah - I did not realize that different buildings throw different grades of dark shadows. Sorry for that. Of course it would have been lit up like Champs- Elyseés outside Browns. WHich is why the carmen said it was too dark to see any blood there.

Funny phenomenon, irrelevance.

Pardon, a taller, well made brick building will throw a far different shadow from a one story high wooden gate.

Now of course we are just being silly, are we not?

Of course such is required to attempt to move the goalposts from the shadow from the Board School, to the shadow by Brown's Yard.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Limited stands for "having a limit". There was a limit to the number of escape routes. They were quite enough to offer the possibility of escaping unseen, providing you used the correct escape route. But unlimited they were not, and unlimited IS the opposite of limited. Saying that the routes were not limited at all is simply wrong. Saying that they were not very few would be more correct. "Oh dear" or not.

So limited is another colloquialism?

"Oh dear" sounds about right.

[Fisherman]

The "me" is because you said I was sweeping stuff under the carpet.

Steve

So a little less grandiose than it sounded? It was all about clearing yourself from a filthy allegation on my behalf? And I am once again the culprit?

I see.

Well, bye for now. Enjoy.

[Elamarna]

Limited stands for "having a limit". There was a limit to the number of escape routes. They were quite enough to offer the possibility of escaping unseen, providing you used the correct escape route. But unlimited they were not, and unlimited IS the opposite of limited. Saying that the routes were not limited at all is simply wrong. Saying that they were not very few would be more correct. "Oh dear" or not.

Who has said anything about "unlimited".
Very few things are "unlimited", certainly in this context.
Such a concept is truly rediculous, if not unrealistic.

To say that the escape routes were "not limited", is not the same as saying they were "unlimited".


The TV documentary said "No easy escape routes" which is highly disingenuous.

To say the escape routes are "limited" is about giving the impression that there were very few, which is clear not true.
Such comments get repeated because of the aforementioned documentary.

When presented with the facts, the number of routes that you resort to playing semantic games is astounding.


Steve

[Elamarna]

So a little less grandiose than it sounded? It was all about clearing yourself from a filthy allegation on my behalf? And I am once again the culprit?

I see.

Well, bye for now. Enjoy.

It was never grandiose when read in its correct context, rather than has you tried to imply.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Why would I give you a guide you wouldn´t be willing to understand? That would be a total waste of time.

Of course Griffiths knew that Lechmere had two legs and an opening in the street that pointed away from Paul. But he felt certain that Lechmere would prioritize staying put, that it was the natural choice for him to make. The very same choice, that is that you peddle as totally and utterly unnatural. And have always done. To no avail.

Ridiculous. And, I'm actually sad to say, clearly dishonest. But, I THINK I get it. Let me unpack this...

Griffiths knew Lechmere COULD have walked away (him having two legs and all), even though he said he COULD NOT walk away because Paul was in Buck's Row and because of the police presence. Further, he BELIEVED he had NO CHOICE but to stay and bluff it out.. but he didn't REALLY believe that. He REALLY believed that he HAD a choice and COULD have left... even though he said he couldn't have, gave reasons why he couldn't have, and used words like "COULD NOT HAVE" and "HAD NO CHOICE"... colloquially of course.

And whereas as last week you said, "when Griffiths said that he would not have run, that was HIS view and not mine" and that "the view he gave was entirely his own", this week he was in agreement with you: he could have left, but chose not to....because he was speaking colloquially. I"m beginning to think I don't know what a colloquialism is.

But.....I've got it! I think I understand now.

Good enough to have this here for others to read.

[The Rookie Detective]

Regarding the limited/possible/viable escape routes; are we able to reduce the options down to a few based on the routes taken by the police on their respective beats?

Of the proposed "23" possible escape routes, how many are simply not viable? i.e. meaning JTR would have run straight into a policeman!

There must be a way to reduce the number down to just a few viable escape routes?

Can we agree that JTR didn't go EAST along Bcuks Row AFTER killing Nichols? i.e. EAST is NOT a realistic option as he would have run into Lechmere/Cross


The Rookie Detective

[Elamarna]

RD,

Its not that easy,
For instance despite what you may have read we do not know the exact beat for Neil.
Some(pro Lechmere) make it very short, come up into Bucks Row from Thomas St (south).
Others have it going to Bakers Row and turning along Buckrow from there.
The only written account we have is a newspaper account Echo 21st sept, which says it includes all the above plus the northern section of Thomas st and queen anne st.

Of course we can assume that he knew the beats, but that is a big assumption in my view. There is nothing to suggest he was aware of Neil's beat, it is just ideas that have been repeated over and over.
Neil is the only officer to patrol Bucks Row, once approx every 30 minutes.
Thain and Mizen, pass either entrance again once every approx 30 minutes.

Indeed when the carmen see Mizen he is exiting from Old Montague st, he would not have seen anyone leave Bucks Row from there. Not did he stop Lechmere or Paul, they approached him.

Thain did see two men, we assume men out for legitimate reasons. He did not stop them.

If the killer passed Neil at say the start of Bucks Row or at the bottom of Thomas St (south) would it really matter?
Would Neil have taken enough notice to be able to ID him later.
He would have no reason to stop him, if the killer was walking normally

There are 50 minutes at least each hour where it is clear of any police presence, it's NOT heavily patrolled at all.

I therefore suggest that just the possibility that the killer could have bumped into a police office is not sufficient reason to say the route is not viable.

Of those 23 routes , 5 can I feel be discounted, as either too dangerous or maybe not possible.

The southern routes, Woods buildings, Court and Thomas street are probably the most obvious, as they are the quickest, and get one out of sight from the east end very quickly.

Yes we can exclude a route eastwards down Bucks Row, and such is not included in that 23.
However back East along Winthrop cannot be discounted.
Of into any of the nearby buildings.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Regarding the limited/possible/viable escape routes; are we able to reduce the options down to a few based on the routes taken by the police on their respective beats?

Of the proposed "23" possible escape routes, how many are simply not viable? i.e. meaning JTR would have run straight into a policeman!

There must be a way to reduce the number down to just a few viable escape routes?

Can we agree that JTR didn't go EAST along Bcuks Row AFTER killing Nichols? i.e. EAST is NOT a realistic option as he would have run into Lechmere/Cross


The Rookie Detective

I don't think much can be agreed upon because we simply don't know when Nichols was killed. Despite frequent use of the term, there is no blood "evidence" in this case. We've only words attributed to individuals appearing in media reports. We know that she was seen alive at around 2:30am and that she was found dead at approximately 3:45am. We've no idea of her movements after she left Emily Holland in Whitechapel Road, about a five or six minute walk from the spot upon which she was found in Buck's Row.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A fact is when somebody claims that "if Lechmere had heard Paul from 130 yards away, there would be absolutely no chance of him sticking around". That is presenting a personal view as a fact.

Ergo YOU are committing the kind of error you implicate ME of having done!

Surely you can’t think that Lechmere would have stuck around if Paul was so far away?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll only take so many of your insults, your "worst of Ripperology" comments, before I respond in kind. I think everyone can agree.... You are being willfully dishonest. You said this:

"Christer has said nothing of the sort. Griffiths was well aware that Lechmere that there was no obstacle in the way of Lechmere leaving the scene."

Yet he said, "He couldn't run away, having realized there was someone else in the street" with the narrator adding that GRIFFITHS BELIEVES "....given the heavy police presence and lack of easy escape route, Lechmere had no choice but to cover his tracks and try to bluff things out."

I'm afraid this is one "simple premise" only you can understand. Griffiths says Lechmere could not run away. But what he meant to say what that he could run away, but chose not to? He was being colloquial? You're simply inventing this, obviously, because just last week you said that was YOUR view - and always had been - and that Griffiths views were his, not your's... which any sane person would deduce means you two DISAGREE. Again, you said this:

"when Griffiths said that he would not have run, that was HIS view and not mine.....so the view he gave was entirely his own.."

What Griffiths would have used is a simple colloquialism, meaning that when he said that Lechmere would never flee, he simply stated that he believed it very much likelier that he would not.

I see. So you're now contending that saying he could not have run was a colloquialism... even though he gave REASONS WHY he could not have run. He said this:

"He couldn't run away, having realized there was someone else in the street" with the narrator adding that GRIFFITHS BELIEVES "....given the heavy police presence and lack of easy escape route, Lechmere had no choice but to cover his tracks and try to bluff things out."

Colloquialism indeed. Laughable, actually. And a new low.

I'm afraid you're going to have to give us cheat sheet or a guide of some kind that tells us when we're to believe you, or Griffiths, or ANYONE... and when not to.

The points that you’ve made in this post are beyond argument. Frankly I’m stunned that anyone could disagree with what you’ve written!

[drstrange169]

>> But Lechmere was nevertheless able to discern a body lying there from fifty feet away...?<<

Pleased to read you finally acknowledging Cross claim of where he first saw the body.

Am I to take it you've never been outside at night? You don't understand the concept of light and shade? Then let me help you.

Paul could see a man standing in the road, but he couldn't see the body properly even when he was examining it, that's light and shade.

Where would cheap horror movies be without killer's emerging from the shadows? Where would Caravaggio or George de la Tour be without chiaroscuro?

Seriously, sometimes you just post for the sake of it. Think before you type.

[drstrange169]

>>Calling upon somebody to come and look at a body is no control exhibiting, following that same person out of the street in search of a PC is no control exhibiting, taking the leading role and speaking to the PC is no control exhibiting and so on. It´s good that you pointed that out to those of us who look upon these matters as very clear indicators of a controlling personality!<<

A classic Christer post, totally avoided what we were talking about and a sarcastic comment to try and dismiss the issue.

What we wrote about was the lack of control Cross exhibited during Paul's investigation of the body. What we wrote about was Cross's lack of supposed sense of invulnerability in dealing with Mizen.

[drstrange169]

>> Then again, Llewellyn knew this too. And he nevertheless opted for the abdomen first, going on the medical evidence.<<

Facts Christer, facts.

There is no "medical evidence" that the abdomen was cut first. No report we have from Llewellyn specifically states that the abdominal wounds came first.

All we have is a very vague reference from Baxter,

"Dr. Llewylln seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first."

A fact would be, Dr Llewellyn stated that the abdominal were inflicted first. Baxter isn't sure what Llewellyn thought as evidenced by his use of the word seemed.

In fact, "seemed to incline" suggests some hesitation on Llewellyn's part, does it not?